Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:Linus Van Pelt wrote:I'm not sure why a photo of George Bush speaking means I'm wrong to expect people to oppose him.
You can expect that all you wish, but people don't oppose him.
Most Americans don't support him. By his own definition, this means most Americans oppose him. But let's not use his stupid definition! I believe that you are right on this point; most Americans do not oppose him.
You see, George Bush gets to use his forum to promote his criminal agenda. He can, at whim, travel to Utah and Idaho, set up his podium in front of the "troops", and then prattle on about the war on terrorism -- which, of course, is being fought by young folks who were brought into the armed forces by de facto conscription.
On the other hand, Green Day, this little band from Bay Area, works hard, gets famous, and chooses to use whatever forum that they have developed to speak out against American politics by crafting this fairly poignant, if somewhat ham-fisted, anti-war rock music video. They say, "Hey, wtf. This is crazy thing to join the armed forces. Why would you do this thing?"
Here is where we agree. Green Day >>>>>>>>>>>>> George W. Bush.
And the song, wtf, she is okay song!
Here is where we disagree.
Bottom line: Why this Green Day video gets singled out as particularly annoying or boring is lost on me, particularly in a world where "ESPN Hollywood" exists and Ben Affleck still makes "career choices".
Boring/annoying things do not become less boring/annoying simply because more boring/annoying things exist. As to why this was singled out, I'm not sure.
And just so I'm clear, the "given" is that people are expected to oppose George Bush.
Correct. It baffles me that a sizable minority still supports him. These people are (a) Not Paying Any Attention, (b) Extremely Stupid, (c) Actually Evil, or (d) More than One of the Above.
Therefore, people will receive no credit for actually expressing their opposition.
You've swayed me a little. No credit for opposing; some credit for expressing this opposition.
In addition, people may only express this opposition in a way that you, as the sole arbiter, find exciting and non-annoying.
Ho! Why "may"? Was I ever attempting to grant or deny permission for anybody to express anything? Why "may"? Huh? My statement is not that Green Day "may not" express this opposition in a way that I find exciting and non-annoying. My statement is that if Green Day chooses to express this opposition in a way I find boring and annoying, any social good coming out of it will not dissuade me from accurately describing it as boring and annoying.
Furthermore, if this expression of opposition positively influences a young "idiot", the merit of this expression will be completely discounted, as will the young "idiot".
I did not "completely discount" the merit (or the idiot). I said it was an undisputably Good Thing. My position is that this merit does not make Green Day any less boring and annoying.
Linus Van Pelt wrote:Green Day remains exactly as boring and annoying as they ever were.
We have identified the core issue:
You do not care for Green Day.
Precisely.
Done here?!
PS:
Dear Angriest U. Dragon,
You might have wanted to skip reading this post.
Love, LvP